wppsi-iv interpretive considerations for charlie o

WPPSI-IV Interpretive Considerations for Charlie O. Jackson (11/27/2013) Interpretive considerations provide additional information to assist you, the examiner, in interpretingthe child's performance. This section should not be provided to the parent or recipient of the report. Please review these interpretive considerations before reading the report. These interpretiveconsiderations may suggest that you make changes to the report settings in Q-global. If you makechanges to the report settings, you can re-run the report without being charged. This file contains two full reports: first, the interpretive report, and second, the parent report. Be sure toseparate these reports before providing them to the recipients. Test Behavior Considerations Expressive language difficulties were identified that may significantly affect the accuracy of verbalcomprehension and auditory memory estimates, depending upon the nature and severity of theimpairment. You have indicated that Charlie exhibited expressive language or speech-relateddifficulties. His verbal intellectual scores may underestimate his actual abilities. Receptive language difficulties were identified that may significantly affect the accuracy of test scores,depending upon the nature and severity of the impairment. All tests on the WPPSI-IV require the childto understand the examiner's instructions. You have indicated that Charlie exhibited receptive languageor speech-related difficulties. Receptive language difficulties may affect test performance in subtleways. The examinee may appear inattentive or uncooperative. Problems following directions may resultin poor performance across a variety of tasks. His Verbal Comprehension scores may underestimate hisactual abilities. Referral Reason Considerations Charlie was referred for an assessment of language functioning. For children with language difficulties,scores on verbal intellectual measures may underestimate the individual's actual abilities. Such scores,although dependent on intact language functioning, are not intended as a measure of grammatical,lexical, and syntactic integrity or as a measure of language pragmatics. Score Interpretation Considerations Charlie's overall performance on the VAI is Low Average compared to other children his age. Slowvocabulary development may place him at risk for reading comprehension difficulties in the future.Vocabulary enrichment activities should be considered as part of a comprehensive treatment plan forreading difficulties. Further testing may be warranted. Charlie exhibited expressive problems duringtesting that reportedly did not impact his performance. However, his performance on the VAI wasrelatively low and suggests that his language difficulties may have interfered with his performance.

Copyright © 2013. All rights reserved.

Pearson, the PSI logo, PsychCorp the Wechsler logo, and WPPSI are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education,Inc., or its affiliate(s).

[ 1.3 / RE1 / QG1 ]

Recommendation Considerations These recommendations are meant to be an aid to you as a clinician, but they are not meant as asubstitute for individualized recommendations generated by an individual who is familiar with the child.Please read through the automatically generated recommendations carefully and edit them according tothe child's individual strengths and needs. The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Verbal Skills' was included in the reportbecause the child's verbal skills were an area of weakness relative to his overall ability level. The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Visual Spatial Skills' was included in thereport because the child's visual spatial skills were an area of strength relative to other areas of cognitivefunctioning. The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Fluid Reasoning Skills' was included in thereport because fluid reasoning skills were an area of weakness relative to other areas of cognitive ability. The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Working Memory Skills' was included inthe report because the child's working memory skills were an area of weakness relative to other areas ofcognitive functioning. The recommendation section entitled 'Recommendations for Processing Speed Skills' was included inthe report because the child's processing speed skills were an area of weakness. End of Interpretive Considerations



[ 1.3 / RE1 / QG1 ]

WPPSI™-IV Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Fourth Edition Interpretive Report

Comments:

Examinee Name Charlie O. Jackson Date of Report 12/16/2013

Examinee ID Grade 1

Date of Birth 07/13/2008 Primary Language English

Gender Male Handedness Right

Race/Ethnicity Multiracial Examiner Name Amy Schmid

Date of Testing 11/27/2013 Age at Testing 5 years 4 months Retest? Yes



[ 1.3 / RE1 / QG1 ]

REASON FOR REFERRAL Charlie was referred for an evaluation by Mrs. Swihart, his mother, secondary to school relatedconcerns (reading difficulty, writing difficulty, inattentive behavior, symptoms of hyperactivity),language concerns (receptive language, expressive language), and social/emotional concerns (symptomsof anxiety). BACKGROUND Home Charlie is a 5-year-old child who lives with his parents. There is 1 sibling residing in the same homewith him. His mother attended graduate school and his father is a high school graduate. Language Charlie's primary language is English. He has been exposed to English since birth and speaking Englishsince first talking. Development Charlie was born with no apparent complications. Charlie began sitting alone and crawling within theexpected time frame. He began speaking first words and speaking short sentences later than expected.His social interaction skills developed normally. Additional information about his developmentalmilestones is not known. Health Charlie's health history was provided by his mother. Charlie's most recent vision screening revealed thathe has normal visual acuity. Charlie's most recent hearing screening revealed that he hears withinnormal limits. Reported sensory problems include auditory processing. Charlie was previouslydiagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and sensory-motor difficulties. Charlie iscurrently diagnosed with auditory processing disorder. Education Charlie's educational history was provided by his mother. Charlie's early education experience includesa special services preschool program and a full-day kindergarten program. Charlie currently attends 1stgrade at Newhall Elementary School. He is receiving RTI services and obtains inconsistent grades. Hecurrently has good attendance and has occasional interpersonal difficulties. He is experiencing someacademic difficulties. Thus far Charlie's academic performance has demonstrated personal strengths inthe areas of art and athletics. When compared to his peers, he has shown weaknesses in the areas ofreading, writing, and language. On recent standardized achievement tests, Charlie's performance wasbelow average in reading.

WPPSI™-IV Interpretive Report11/27/2013, Page 2 Charlie O. Jackson

TEST SESSION BEHAVIOR Charlie arrived on time for the test session accompanied by his parent. He was appropriately dressedand groomed. Signs of inattention and hyperactivity were observed during testing. This may have had amild impact on his ability to perform to the best of his ability. He exhibited notable difficulties withexpressive language during testing. In particular, frequent difficulties were seen in the area of wordfinding. Charlie also exhibited notable difficulties with receptive language during testing. Specifically,he required occasional repetition of instructions and occasional clarification or simplification of theinstructions. His receptive language difficulties may have mildly affected his performance on verbaltasks that involve answering questions presented orally. Receptive language difficulties also have thepotential to affect his ability to understand orally-presented instructions, which are a component of bothverbal and nonverbal tasks. ABOUT WPPSI-IV SCORES Charlie was administered 12 subtests from the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale ofIntelligence-Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV). This assessment measures ability across five areas of cognitivefunctioning and produces scores that show how well Charlie performed in these areas, as well asproducing a composite score that represents his overall intellectual ability (FSIQ). Each subtest producesa scaled score that can range from 1 to 19, with scores between 7 and 12 usually considered average.The subtest scaled scores contribute to index scores that represent Charlie's performance in the fivebroad areas of cognitive ability. An index score can range from 40 to 160, with scores from 90 to 109considered average. A percentile rank (PR) is provided for each index score to show Charlie's standing relative to otherchildren the same age in the WPPSI-IV normative sample. If the percentile rank for Charlie's VerbalComprehension Index score is 25, for example, it means that Charlie performed as well as or better thanapproximately 25% of children his age. This appears on the report as PR = 25. The scores obtained on the WPPSI-IV reflect Charlie's true abilities combined with some degree ofmeasurement error. His true score is more accurately represented by a confidence interval (CI), which isa range of scores within which the true score is likely to fall. Composite scores are reported with 95%confidence intervals to ensure greater accuracy when interpreting the test scores. For each compositescore reported for Charlie, there is 95% certainty that his true score falls within the listed range. It is common for children to exhibit significant discrepancies across areas of performance. If thedifference between two scores is statistically significant, it is listed in the report with a base rate to aid ininterpretation. The base rate (BR) provides a basis for estimating how rare a particular score differencewas in the WPPSI-IV normative sample or among children of a similar ability level. For example, a baserate of 1%-2% is reported if the scaled score for Block Design (BD) is 5.60 points higher than the meanscaled score for the primary index subtests (MSS-I). This appears on the report as BD > MSS-I, BR =1%-2%. This means that 1%-2% of children in the WPPSI-IV normative sample or among children of asimilar ability level obtained a difference of this magnitude or greater between those two scores.


Young children's intellectual abilities may change substantially over the course of early childhood.Additionally, a child's scores on the WPPSI-IV can be influenced by motivation, attention, interests, andopportunities for learning. All scores may be slightly higher or lower if Charlie were tested again on adifferent day. It is therefore important to view these test scores as a snapshot of Charlie's current level ofintellectual development. When these scores are used as part of a comprehensive evaluation, theycontribute to an understanding of his current strengths and any needs that can be addressed. INTERPRETATION OF WPPSI-IV RESULTS Full Scale IQ The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) composite score is derived from six subtests and summarizes ability across adiverse set of cognitive functions. This score is considered the most representative indicator of globalintellectual functioning. Subtests are drawn from five areas of cognitive ability: verbal comprehension,fluid reasoning, visual-spatial ability, processing speed, and working memory. Charlie's FSIQ wasmeasured in the Average range when compared to other children his age (FSIQ = 99, PR = 47, CI =93-105). While the FSIQ provides a broad representation of cognitive functioning, describing Charlie'sspecific cognitive abilities provides a more thorough understanding of his current level of functioning.Some children perform at approximately the same level in all of these areas, but most children displayareas of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Verbal Comprehension The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured Charlie's knowledge acquired from his environment,verbal concept formation, and verbal reasoning. Overall, Charlie's performance on subtests within theVCI was typical for his age but was an area of relative weakness compared to his overall level of ability(VCI = 90, PR = 25, Average range, CI = 84-97; VCI < MIS, BR = 5%-10%). His scores on verbalcomprehension tasks were weaker than his performance on tasks that required him to figure things outby looking at them and use logic to solve problems (VCI < VSI, BR = 2.2%; VCI < FRI, BR = 11.1%).Additionally, his Verbal Comprehension performance was somewhat weaker than scores obtained ontasks requiring him to hold information in his mind (VCI < WMI, BR = 22.0%). Overall, verbalcomprehension scores suggest that Charlie's verbal development is currently lagging in comparison tohis development of visual spatial and logical reasoning skills and is an area for continued intervention. With regard to individual subtests within the VCI, the Information (IN) subtest consists of generalknowledge questions and the Similarities (SI) subtest required Charlie to identify similarities betweencommon objects and concepts. He performed comparably across both subtests, suggesting that theseverbal skills are similarly developed. Relatively weak verbal skills are consistent with his reported difficulties with expressive and receptivelanguage and may also contribute to his current difficulties with reading.


Visual Spatial Visual spatial processing involves organizing visual information, understanding part-wholerelationships, attending to visual detail, and integrating visual and motor functions. During thisevaluation, visual spatial processing was one of Charlie's strengths, with performance that wassomewhat advanced for his age (VSI = 118, PR = 88, High Average range, CI = 107-125; VSI > MIS,BR = 2%-5%). Charlie quickly and accurately put together the pieces of puzzle-like tasks, and hisperformance in this area was particularly strong in relation to his performance on language-based tasksand logical reasoning tasks (VSI > VCI, BR = 2.2%; VSI > FRI, BR = 20.6%). Because his visualspatial skills currently appear stronger than his fluid reasoning skills, he may work easily with purelyvisual information, but have greater difficulty applying complex reasoning to visual stimuli. His visualspatial scores were also particularly strong when compared to his performance on working memorytasks and tests of processing speed (VSI > WMI, BR = 17.8%; VSI > PSI, BR = 4.4%). His relativestrength in visual spatial skills compared to working memory skills suggests that at this time, he mayshow relative skill when processing visual information, but he may experience relative difficulty makingdistinctions between the visual information that he previously viewed, and the visual information that heis currently viewing. The VSI consists of two tasks. On the Block Design (BD) subtest, Charlie viewed designs and usedblocks to re-create each design. The Object Assembly (OA) subtest required him to assemble the piecesof puzzles to create pictures of common objects. Charlie showed uneven performance on these tasks.Putting together multicolored blocks to match pictures on Block Design was a strength for Charlie (BD= 16; BD > MSS-I, BR = 1%-2%). However, he showed greater difficulty on Object Assembly, in whichhe put together pictures of common objects (OA = 10; BD > OA, BR = 3.7%). This pattern of scoressuggests that his ability to analyze and synthesize abstract visual information may be somewhat strongerthan his ability to understand part-whole relationships and engage in trial-and-error learning. Fluid Reasoning The Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured Charlie's inductive reasoning skills, broad visualintelligence, simultaneous thinking, conceptual thinking, and classification ability. Overall, Charlie'sperformance on subtests within this index was typical for his age (FRI= 106, PR = 66, Average range,CI = 98-113). His performance on fluid reasoning tasks was particularly strong when compared to hisperformance on tasks that involved language-based skills (FRI > VCI, BR = 11.1%). Moreover, hisoverall performance on this index was stronger than performance on tasks that measured processingspeed (FRI > PSI, BR = 21.7%). While Charlie's fluid reasoning performance during this assessmentappeared stronger than some cognitive abilities, it was also weaker than others. His current performanceevidenced difficulty with fluid reasoning tasks in relation to his performance on visual spatial tasks (FRI< VSI, BR = 20.6%). The FRI consists of two subtests: Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts. Matrix Reasoning (MR)required Charlie to select the missing pieces in incomplete patterns. On Picture Concepts (PC), he wasasked to choose pictures from two or three rows to form a group with a common trait. He performedcomparably across both subtests, suggesting that his perceptual organization and categorical reasoningskills are similarly developed at this time.


Working Memory Working memory involves attention, concentration, and mental control. The WPPSI-IV WorkingMemory Index (WMI) measures specific aspects of working memory such as visual working memory,visual-spatial working memory, and ability to resist interference from previously memorized items. Inthe area of working memory, Charlie exhibited diverse performance on the WMI, but his overallperformance was similar to other children his age (WMI = 103, PR = 58, Average range, CI = 95-111).Charlie showed average recall of series of pictures and locations of animal cards. His performance onthese tasks was relatively strong compared to his performance on language based tasks (WMI > VCI,BR = 22.0%). While Charlie's performance on working memory tasks was stronger than some cognitiveabilities, it was also somewhat weaker than others. Working memory performance was relatively lowcompared to his performance on visual spatial tasks (WMI < VSI, BR = 17.8%). With regard to subtests within the WMI, the Picture Memory (PM) subtest required Charlie tomemorize pictures and identify them on subsequent pages. On the Zoo Locations (ZL) subtest, hememorized the location of animal cards on a map and then placed the cards in the same location. Charlieshowed uneven performance on these tasks. When he viewed the location of animal cards and wasasked to place the cards in the correct location, his performance was above average for his age (ZL = 13)however, he showed greater difficulty remembering series of rapidly-presented pictures (PM = 8; PM <MSS-I, BR = 10%-25%; PM < ZL, BR = 8.2%). This pattern of strengths and weaknesses suggests thathe may attend more easily to information during interactive tasks, or when information is supplementedby spatial cues. Processing Speed The Processing Speed Index (PSI) measured Charlie's ability to quickly and correctly scan ordiscriminate simple visual information. Charlie's performance across subtests in the PSI was diverse butoverall was typical for his age (PSI = 94, PR = 34, Average range, CI = 85-104). When compared withhis scores on visual spatial subtests, Charlie's performance on processing speed subtests was relativelyweak (PSI < VSI, BR = 4.4%). Additionally, his processing speed scores appeared weak compared tohis performance on tasks requiring him to use logic-based reasoning (PSI < FRI, BR = 21.7%). The PSI consists of two subtests in which Charlie scanned pictures and marked target pictures with anink dauber. During the Bug Search (BS) subtest, he marked pictures of bugs in a search group thatmatched the target bug. The Cancellation (CA) subtest required him to mark target objects in a randomand structured array. Charlie demonstrated uneven performance across subtests within the PSI. Heworked quickly when scanning an array of pictures to mark target objects (CA = 12). However, heshowed greater difficulty on Bug Search, where his performance was weak in relation to his overalllevel of ability (BS = 6; BS < MSS-I, BR = 2%-5%; CA > BS, BR = 5.0%). This pattern of strengthsand weaknesses suggests that he currently processes concrete, lifelike images more efficiently thanabstract illustrations. His visual recognition skills may also be better developed than his visualshort-term memory and visual discrimination skills.


ANCILLARY INDEXES In addition to the indexes described above, Charlie was administered several ancillary indexes.Ancillary indexes do not replace FSIQ and the primary index scores, but are meant to provide additionalinformation about Charlie's cognitive profile. Vocabulary Acquisition Charlie was administered the two subtests comprising the Vocabulary Acquisition Index (VAI), anancillary index that provides a simpler, more focused measure of verbal abilities. His overallperformance was slightly below other children his age (VAI = 83, PR = 13, Low Average range, CI =77-91). His performance was similar on both tasks, which required him to point to pictures that bestrepresented words read aloud, and to name objects in pictures (RV = 7; PN = 7). These scores suggestthat his expressive and receptive language abilities are similarly developed. His somewhat weakperformance on VAI subtests is consistent with his reported receptive and expressive languagedifficulties. His performance may also have been impacted by receptive language difficulties observedduring testing. Nonverbal Index The Nonverbal Index (NVI) is derived from five subtests that do not require verbal responses. Thisindex can provide a measure of general intellectual functioning that minimizes language demands forchildren with special clinical needs such as speech and language problems. Subtests in this index aredrawn from the Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed scales.Charlie's performance on the NVI fell in the Average range when compared to other children his age(NVI = 103, PR = 58, CI = 97-109). General Ability and Cognitive Proficiency Charlie was administered the four subtests comprising the General Ability Index (GAI), an ancillaryindex that provides an estimate of general intelligence that is less sensitive to the influence of workingmemory and processing speed difficulties than FSIQ. The GAI consists of subtests from the visualspatial, fluid reasoning, and verbal domains. His overall performance on this index was similar to otherchildren his age (GAI = 108, PR = 70, Average range, CI = 101-114). His GAI score was significantlyhigher than his FSIQ score (GAI > FSIQ, BR = 3.2%). Charlie was also administered the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), which consists of four subtestsdrawn from the working memory and processing speed domains. His performance on this Indexsuggests that he exhibits average efficiency when processing cognitive information in the service oflearning, problem solving, and higher-order reasoning (CPI = 98, PR = 45, Average range, CI = 91-106).Charlie's performance on subtests contributing to the GAI was significantly stronger than his overalllevel of cognitive proficiency (GAI > CPI, BR = 22.8%). The significant difference between Charlie's GAI and FSIQ indicates that the contributions of workingmemory and processing speed may have led to a lower overall FSIQ. Relative weaknesses in mentalcontrol and speed of visual scanning may sometimes create challenges as he engages in more complexcognitive processes, such as learning new material or applying logical thinking skills. This pattern of


cognitive functioning is consistent with his attention problems. SUMMARY Charlie is a 5-year-old boy referred for this evaluation by Mrs. Swihart, his mother, secondary to schoolrelated concerns (reading difficulty, writing difficulty, inattentive behavior, symptoms of hyperactivity),language concerns (receptive language, expressive language), and social/emotional concerns (symptomsof anxiety). The WPPSI-IV was used to assess his cognitive ability across five areas of cognitivefunctioning. When interpreting these scores, it is important to view these results as a snapshot of hiscurrent intellectual functioning. When interpreting his performance on this evaluation, it is important toconsider that receptive language problems appeared to interfere with his ability to demonstrate hisoptimal performance. All subtests on the WPPSI-IV require a child to understand spoken directions.Challenges with inattention and hyperactivity may have also interfered with optimal performance. Asmeasured by the WPPSI-IV, his overall FSIQ fell in the Average range when compared to other childrenhis age (FSIQ = 99). He exhibited diverse visual spatial skills, but overall this area was a relativestrength when compared to his overall ability (VSI = 118). When compared to his fluid reasoning (FRI =106), working memory (WMI = 103), and processing speed (PSI = 94) performance, visual spatial skillsemerged a particular strength. Language skills were one of his lowest areas of functioning during thecurrent evaluation, as he showed age-appropriate performance on the Verbal Comprehension Index(VCI = 90). Verbal scores emerged as an area of need when compared to his performance on fluidreasoning tasks (FRI = 106) and working memory tasks (WMI = 103). Charlie's fluid reasoning skillswere similar to other children his age (FRI = 106), and were relatively strong compared to hisperformance on processing speed tasks (PSI = 94). Ancillary Index scores revealed additionalinformation about Charlie's cognitive profile. His overall level of vocabulary development, as measuredby the Vocabulary Acquisition Index, fell in the Low Average range (VAI = 83). On the NonverbalIndex, a measure general intellectual functioning that minimizes language demands, his performancewas Average for his age (NVI = 103). He scored in the Average range on the General Ability Index,which provides an estimate of general intelligence that is less sensitive to the influence of workingmemory and processing speed difficulties than FSIQ (GAI = 108). Performance on the CognitiveProficiency Index, which captures the efficiency with which he processes information, wascomparatively low, falling in the Average range (CPI = 98). Charlie's reported reading difficulties maybe related to his relatively weak verbal reasoning skills and vocabulary development. His relativelyweak performance on the Verbal Comprehension Index and Vocabulary Acquisition Index is consistentwith his reported receptive and expressive language difficulties. Potential areas for intervention aredescribed in the following section. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Verbal Skills Charlie's overall performance on the VCI was age-appropriate compared to other children his age.While verbal skills were within normal limits, they were an area of weakness compared to other areas ofcognitive functioning. Relatively weak verbal skills place a child at risk for reading comprehensionproblems and may make it difficult to keep up with peers in the classroom. Classroom activities often


involve listening comprehension, verbal reasoning, and oral responding. It is therefore recommendedthat interventions are provided in this area. Verbal interventions include shared reading strategies suchas dialogic reading. This strategy allows adults to ask the child specific questions that encourageinterest, comprehension, and critical thinking. Vocabulary can be enriched by exposing Charlie to novelsituations and encouraging him to ask the names of unknown objects. Adults can keep a list of wordsthat Charlie learns and review them periodically with him. Researching new concepts can help toconcretize new vocabulary in his mind. Adults may wish to encourage Charlie to engage in verbaldiscourse by creating an open, positive environment for conversation. For example, adults can ask himopen-ended questions and allow him sufficient time to formulate a complete response. Family memberscan encourage Charlie to engage in supervised age-appropriate conversation in the community. Familymembers should encourage Charlie to engage in supervised age-appropriate conversation in thecommunity. For example, he can be encouraged to order his own food at a restaurant or ask questions toa store clerk. Adults may wish to give him positive feedback when engaging in conversation. Positivefeedback includes engaging in further reciprocal conversation, asking Charlie to elaborate on histhoughts, and making positive comments about his contributions to the conversation. Recommendations for Visual Spatial Skills Charlie's visual spatial skills fell in the High Average range and were an area of personal strength.Visual spatial ability involves skills such as understanding things by looking at them and picturing howindividual elements, such as blocks and puzzle pieces, go together to create a bigger picture. Visualspatial skills may be an important element of academic success because they may help a childunderstand how individual parts are related to complex concepts. They may also assist in the acquisitionof early reading skills. As such, it is important to support Charlie's visual spatial strengths by providingactivities that bolster these skills. For example, he can be encouraged to engage in visual spatial tasksthat he enjoys, such as putting together puzzles, creating maps, drawing, or playing withconstruction-type toys. Many computer games are available that engage children's visual spatialabilities. When new information is presented in the classroom, Charlie may benefit if visual contentsupplements verbal content. Providing opportunities for visually based learning may help Charlieunderstand and remember new ideas. As strategies are used to augment Charlie's learning, it is importantthat they are monitored for effectiveness and are modified according to his needs. Additionally, Charlie's visual skills are particularly strong when compared to his verbal skills. Childrenwith this pattern of functioning may sometimes experience difficulty putting their ideas into words. Ifthis is the case, it may be helpful to reduce language demands when appropriate. For example, if Charlieexperiences difficulty explaining his emotions, it may be helpful to provide a series of picturesdepicting emotions, and ask him to point to the picture that shows how he feels. In school, if Charlie hasa difficult time generating verbal responses, it may be helpful to provide him with several possibleresponses and ask him to choose the appropriate response. When possible, it may be helpful to askCharlie to draw a picture of the information or create a collage in addition to describing it aloud. AsCharlie develops his literacy skills, it may be useful to choose books that are rich in visual imagery inorder to enhance his enjoyment of reading. Visual spatial performance also emerged as a particular strength when compared to fluid reasoningperformance. Children with this pattern of functioning may show relatively strong accuracy whenidentifying important patterns and details in visual information, but they may have relative difficulty


understanding how to use that information in complex problem solving. It may be helpful to build onCharlie's visual spatial strengths by teaching him to put visual spatial information into words, so that hecan think about it in multiple ways. For example, when putting together pieces of a puzzle, he can betaught to verbalize what he is doing, e.g., 'The top curve goes with the top curve' and 'The yellow linegoes with the yellow line.' When identifying the missing pieces of visual patterns, he could be taught toverbalize what he sees, such as 'Big circle, little circle, big circle. Little circle comes next.' These simpleactivities may help him use his visual spatial skills when completing more complex tasks. Recommendations for Fluid Reasoning Skills Charlie exhibited Average performance on the FRI. While this score is within normal limits for his age,it was an area of relative weakness. Children who have relative difficulty with fluid reasoning tasks mayhave difficulty solving problems, applying logical reasoning skills, and understanding complicatedconcepts. Charlie may benefit from practicing skills in this area. He may benefit from structure andpractice when approaching tasks that are challenging to him. With regard to specific fluid reasoninginterventions, he can be asked to identify patterns or to look at a series and identify what comes next.Additionally, he can be given a group of objects and asked to think of multiple ways to group thoseobjects. Adults can ask him to explain each of his groupings. Performing age-appropriate scienceexperiments may be helpful in building logical thinking skills. For example, adults can help him form ahypothesis and then perform a simple experiment, using measurement techniques to determine whetheror not his hypothesis was correct. Asking questions about stories can also build fluid reasoning skills.For example, when reading a book or watching a movie, Charlie can be asked to identify the main ideaof the story. Adults in his life can ask him open-ended questions that utilize his fluid reasoning skills.They can ask him questions such as, 'What do you think would happen if...' and help him to thinklogically about his responses. Reinforcing his responses with positive feedback may encourage him tocontinue engaging his fluid reasoning skills. Recommendations for Working Memory Skills Charlie's working memory scores fell in the Average range. Working memory skills are an area ofweakness compared to other areas of cognitive functioning, which may make it difficult for him toconcentrate and attending to information that is presented to him. This may impact his schoolperformance in the future. Relatively weak working memory skills may also be contributing to hisreading difficulties, and can lead to reading comprehension problems as text becomes more complex infuture grades. Several recommendations are made based upon this score. Because WPPSI-IV onlymeasures visual working memory, further testing may be useful in assessing Charlie's auditory workingmemory. A complete understanding of his current working memory functioning may be helpful ininforming intervention. Computerized interventions may be helpful in building his capacity to exertmental control, ignore distraction, and manipulate information in his mind. Other strategies that may beuseful in increasing working memory include teaching Charlie to chunk information and connect newinformation to concepts that he already knows. As part of a comprehensive intervention plan, literacygoals such as learning letters and identifying the main idea of stories that are read aloud can beidentified. It is important to reinforce Charlie's progress during these interventions. Goals should besmall and measurable, and should steadily increase in complexity as his skills grow stronger.


Recommendations for Processing Speed Overall processing speed scores an area of relative weakness, indicating that this is a potential area forintervention. While Charlie's processing speed was measured in the Average range compared to otherchildren his age, it was an area of personal weakness. This may lead to difficulty keeping up with thepace of classroom activities. It is important to identify the factors contributing to Charlie's performancein this area; while some children simply work at a slow pace, others are slowed down by perfectionism,visual processing problems, inattention, or fine motor coordination difficulties. In addition tointerventions aimed at these underlying areas, processing speed skills may be built through practice.Interventions can focus on building Charlie's fluency on simple tasks. For example, he can playcard-sorting games in which he quickly sorts cards according to increasingly complex rules. Fluency inacademic skills can also be increased through practice. Speeded flash card drills, such as asking Charlieto identify letters or solve simple addition problems under a time constraint, may help developautomaticity that can free up cognitive resources in service of more complex academic tasks.Computerized interventions may be helpful in building his fluency in simple tasks. During the initialstages of these interventions, Charlie can be rewarded for working quickly rather than accurately, asperfectionism can sometimes interfere with speed. As his performance improves, both accuracy andspeed can be rewarded. Thank you for the opportunity to assess Charlie. Please contact me with any questions you have aboutthese results. This report is only valid if signed by a qualified professional:

Amy Schmid Date


PRIMARY SUMMARY

Subtests used to derive the FSIQ are bolded. Subtests not typically core for any composite score are in parentheses.

Scaled Score Summary

Subtest NameTotal

Raw Score Scaled ScorePercentile

RankAge

Equivalent SEM

Information IN 18 8 25 4:6 0.99

Similarities SI 20 9 37 5:0 0.85

(Vocabulary) VC - - - - -

(Comprehension) CO - - - - -

Block Design BD 27 16 98 7:7 1.12

Object Assembly OA 25 10 50 5:6 1.08

Matrix Reasoning MR 16 12 75 6:4 0.95

Picture Concepts PC 12 10 50 5:4 0.85

Picture Memory PM 12 8 25 4:6 0.95

Zoo Locations ZL 12 13 84 6:8 1.20

Bug Search BS 13 6 9 <4:0 1.20

Cancellation CA 42 12 75 6:4 1.53

(Animal Coding) AC - - - - -

5

4

3

PMVC

2

1

7

SI CO BD PC ZL CA ACBSMROAIN

6

8

11

10

9

Subtest Scaled Score Profile

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

Verbal Comprehension Visual Spatial Fluid Reasoning Working Memory Processing Speed


PRIMARY SUMMARY (CONTINUED)

Confidence intervals are calculated using the Standard Error of Estimation.

Composite Score Summary

CompositeSum of

Scaled ScoresComposite

ScorePercentile

Rank

95%Confidence

IntervalQualitativeDescription SEM

Verbal Comprehension VCI 17 90 25 84-97 Average 3.67

Visual Spatial VSI 26 118 88 107-125 High Average 4.50

Fluid Reasoning FRI 22 106 66 98-113 Average 3.67

Working Memory WMI 21 103 58 95-111 Average 4.50

Processing Speed PSI 18 94 34 85-104 Average 5.61

Full Scale IQ FSIQ 59 99 47 93-105 Average 3.00

80

70

60

FRI

50

40

100

VSI WMI PSI FSIQVCI

90

110

140

130

120

Composite Score Profile

160

150

Note. Vertical bars represent the Confidence Intervals.


PRIMARY ANALYSIS

Comparison score mean derived from the five index scores.Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.Base rate for overall sample.

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.Base rate for ability level.

Index Level Strengths and Weaknesses

Index ScoreComparison

Score Difference Critical ValueStrength orWeakness Base Rate

VCI 90 102.20 -12.20 7.49 W 5%-10%

VSI 118 102.20 15.80 8.67 S 2%-5%

FRI 106 102.20 3.80 7.49 >25%

WMI 103 102.20 0.80 8.67 >25%

PSI 94 102.20 -8.20 10.32 10%-25%

Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Index Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical ValueSignificantDifference Base Rate

VCI - VSI 90 118 -28 8.36 Y 2.2%

VCI - FRI 90 106 -16 7.47 Y 11.1%

VCI - WMI 90 103 -13 8.36 Y 22.0%

VCI - PSI 90 94 -4 9.65 N 44.3%

VSI - FRI 118 106 12 8.36 Y 20.6%

VSI - WMI 118 103 15 9.16 Y 17.8%

VSI - PSI 118 94 24 10.36 Y 4.4%

FRI - WMI 106 103 3 8.36 N 46.5%

FRI - PSI 106 94 12 9.65 Y 21.7%

WMI - PSI 103 94 9 10.36 N 26.5%


PRIMARY ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Comparison score mean derived from the ten core subtest scores.Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.

Subtest Level Strengths and Weaknesses

Subtest ScoreComparison

Score Difference Critical ValueStrength orWeakness Base Rate

IN 8 10.40 -2.40 2.30 W 10%-25%

SI 9 10.40 -1.40 2.02 10%-25%

BD 16 10.40 5.60 2.56 S 1%-2%

OA 10 10.40 -0.40 2.48 >25%

MR 12 10.40 1.60 2.22 10%-25%

PC 10 10.40 -0.40 2.02 >25%

PM 8 10.40 -2.40 2.22 W 10%-25%

ZL 13 10.40 2.60 2.73 10%-25%

BS 6 10.40 -4.40 2.73 W 2%-5%

CA 12 10.40 1.60 3.42 25%

Subtest Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Subtest Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical ValueSignificantDifference Base Rate

IN - SI 8 9 -1 1.83 N 41.1%

BD - OA 16 10 6 2.39 Y 3.7%

MR - PC 12 10 2 2.01 N 30.5%

PM - ZL 8 13 -5 2.11 Y 8.2%

BS - CA 6 12 -6 2.79 Y 5.0%


ANCILLARY SUMMARY

Scaled Score Summary

Subtest NameTotal

Raw Score Scaled ScorePercentile

RankAge

Equivalent SEM

Receptive Vocabulary RV 15 7 16 3:10 0.90

Picture Naming PN 13 7 16 4:1 1.04

Cancellation Random CAR 20 11 63 6:6 1.72

Cancellation Structured CAS 22 12 75 6:4 1.80

Index Score Summary

CompositeSum of Scaled

ScoresStandard

ScorePercentile

Rank

95%Confidence

IntervalQualitativeDescription SEM

Vocabulary Acquisition VAI 14 83 13 77-91 Low Average 3.97

Nonverbal NVI 52 103 58 97-109 Average 3.00

General Ability GAI 45 108 70 101-114 Average 3.35

Cognitive Proficiency CPI 39 98 45 91-106 Average 4.24

80

70

60

GAI

50

40

100

NVI CPIVAI

90

110

140

130

120

Ancillary Index Score Profile

160

150

Note. Vertical bars represent the Confidence Intervals.


ANCILLARY ANALYSIS

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level.Base rate for overall sample.

Statistical significance (critical values) at the .15 level. End of Report

Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Index Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical ValueSignificantDifference Base Rate

GAI - FSIQ 108 99 9 3.01 Y 3.2%

GAI - CPI 108 98 10 7.78 Y 22.8%

Subtest and Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons

Subtest Comparison Score 1 Score 2 Difference Critical ValueSignificantDifference Base Rate

RV - PN 7 7 0 2.02 N

CAR - CAS 11 12 -1 3.37 N 38.5%


WPPSI™-IV Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Fourth Edition Parent Summary Report

Examinee Name Charlie O. Jackson Date of Report 12/16/2013

Examinee ID Grade 1

Date of Birth 07/13/2008 Primary Language English

Gender Male Handedness Right

Race/Ethnicity Multiracial Examiner Name Amy Schmid

Date of Testing 11/27/2013 Age at Testing 5 years 4 months Retest? Yes



[ 1.3 / RE1 / QG1 ]

REASON FOR REFERRAL Charlie was referred for an evaluation by Mrs. Swihart, his mother, secondary to school relatedconcerns (reading difficulty, writing difficulty, inattentive behavior, symptoms of hyperactivity),language concerns (receptive language, expressive language), and social/emotional concerns (symptomsof anxiety). BACKGROUND Home Charlie is a 5-year-old child who lives with his parents. There is 1 sibling residing in the same homewith him. His mother attended graduate school and his father is a high school graduate. Language Charlie's primary language is English. He has been exposed to English since birth and speaking Englishsince first talking. Development Charlie was born with no apparent complications. Charlie began sitting alone and crawling within theexpected time frame. He began speaking first words and speaking short sentences later than expected.His social interaction skills developed normally. Additional information about his developmentalmilestones is not known. Health Charlie's health history was provided by his mother. Charlie's most recent vision screening revealed thathe has normal visual acuity. Charlie's most recent hearing screening revealed that he hears withinnormal limits. Reported sensory problems include auditory processing. Charlie was previouslydiagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and sensory-motor difficulties. Charlie iscurrently diagnosed with auditory processing disorder. Education Charlie's educational history was provided by his mother. Charlie's early education experience includesa special services preschool program and a full-day kindergarten program. Charlie currently attends 1stgrade at Newhall Elementary School. He is receiving RTI services and obtains inconsistent grades. Hecurrently has good attendance and has occasional interpersonal difficulties. He is experiencing someacademic difficulties. Thus far Charlie's academic performance has demonstrated personal strengths inthe areas of art and athletics. When compared to his peers, he has shown weaknesses in the areas ofreading, writing, and language. On recent standardized achievement tests, Charlie's performance wasbelow average in reading.

WPPSI™-IV Parent Summary Report11/27/2013, Page 2 Charlie O. Jackson

TEST SESSION BEHAVIOR Charlie arrived on time for the test session accompanied by his parent. He was appropriately dressedand groomed. Signs of inattention and hyperactivity were observed during testing. This may have had amild impact on his ability to perform to the best of his ability. He exhibited notable difficulties withexpressive language during testing. In particular, frequent difficulties were seen in the area of wordfinding. Charlie also exhibited notable difficulties with receptive language during testing. Specifically,he required occasional repetition of instructions and occasional clarification or simplification of theinstructions. His receptive language difficulties may have mildly affected his performance on verbaltasks that involve answering questions presented orally. Receptive language difficulties also have thepotential to affect his ability to understand orally-presented instructions, which are a component of bothverbal and nonverbal tasks. ABOUT THE WPPSI-IV The WPPSI-IV is used to measure the general thinking and reasoning skills of children aged 2 to 7years. This assessment provides a composite score that represents Charlie's overall intellectual ability(FSIQ), as well as index scores that represent the following areas of cognitive functioning: verbalcomprehension, visual spatial, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. Charlie was alsoadministered subtests from four ancillary indexes that provide additional information about his cognitiveskills. WPPSI-IV scores show how well Charlie performed compared to a group of children his age from theUnited States. An index score can range from 40 to 160, with scores from 90 to 109 considered average.It is common for children to exhibit strengths and weaknesses across index scores. Young children's intellectual abilities may change substantially over the course of early childhood.Additionally, a child's scores on the WPPSI-IV can be influenced by motivation, attention, interests, andopportunities for learning. All scores may be slightly higher or lower if Charlie were tested again on adifferent day. It is therefore important to view these test scores as a snapshot of Charlie's current level ofintellectual development. When these scores are used as part of a comprehensive evaluation, theycontribute to an understanding of his current strengths and any needs that can be addressed.

WPPSI-IV SCORE INTERPRETATION

Primary Indexes

Charlie's FSIQ score, a measure of overall intellectual ability, was in the Average range compared toother children who are 5 years and 4 months old (FSIQ = 99). Overall, his performance on these taskswas better than approximately 47 out of 100 children in his age group.


Ancillary Indexes

The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured Charlie's knowledge learned from his environment,his ability to verbalize meaningful concepts, and his ability to reason with language-based information.His overall score on the VCI fell in the Average range (VCI = 90). This means that he performed betterthan approximately 25 out of 100 children in the same age group. During this evaluation, verbal skillsemerged as one of his weakest areas of performance and are an area for continued development.

On the Visual Spatial Index (VSI), which measures the ability to organize visual information andunderstand part-whole relationships, Charlie's overall score was in the High Average range (VSI = 118).Tasks in this index involve constructing designs and puzzles under a time constraint. His performancewas better than approximately 88 out of 100 children his age. Charlie's performance in this area wasrelatively strong compared to his overall level of ability. This may be an area that can be built upon inhis future development.

The Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured Charlie's logical thinking skills, his ability to think aboutmultiple things at once, and his ability to classify concepts. His overall score on the FRI fell in theAverage range (FRI = 106). This means that he performed better than approximately 66 out of 100children in the same age group.

The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured Charlie's attention, concentration, mental control, andreasoning skills. His overall score on the WMI fell in the Average range (WMI = 103). This means thathe performed better than approximately 58 out of 100 children in the same age group.

On the Processing Speed Index (PSI), which measures the ability to quickly and correctly scan visualinformation, Charlie's overall score was in the Average range (PSI = 94). His performance was betterthan approximately 34 out of 100 children his age.

An additional set of tasks was administered in order to evaluate Charlie's level of vocabularydevelopment. He obtained a score of 83 on the Vocabulary Acquisition Index (VAI) and scored higherthan approximately 13 out of 100 children his age. In general, his vocabulary development falls in theLow Average range (VAI = 83).

The Nonverbal Index (NVI) is a measure of general ability derived from scores on tasks that do notrequire verbal responses. On this ancillary index, Charlie's overall score fell in the Average range, andwas higher than approximately 58 out of 100 children his age (NVI = 103).

The General Ability Index (GAI) is an ancillary index that provides an estimate of general intelligencethat is less sensitive to the influence of working memory and processing speed difficulties than FSIQ.His overall score on the GAI fell in the Average range. His score was higher than approximately 70 outof 100 children his age (GAI = 108).

The Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) provides a summary score of Charlie's working memory andprocessing speed performance. On this ancillary index, his overall score fell in the Average range, andwas higher than approximately 45 out of 100 children his age (CPI = 98).


Thank you for the opportunity to assess Charlie. Please contact me with any questions you have aboutthese results. This report is only valid if signed by a qualified professional:

Amy Schmid Date


WPPSI-IV TEST SCORES

Score Summary

Composite Score Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Verbal Comprehension VCI 90 25 Average

Visual Spatial VSI 118 88 High Average

Fluid Reasoning FRI 106 66 Average

Working Memory WMI 103 58 Average

Processing Speed PSI 94 34 Average

Full Scale IQ FSIQ 99 47 Average

80

70

60

FRI

50

40

100

VSI WMI PSI FSIQVCI

90

110

140

130

120

Composite Score Profile

160

150


Ancillary Score Summary

Composite Score Percentile Rank Qualitative Description

Vocabulary Acquisition VAI 83 13 Low Average

Nonverbal NVI 103 58 Average

General Ability GAI 108 70 Average

Cognitive Proficiency CPI 98 45 Average

80

70

60

GAI

50

40

100

NVI CPIVAI

90

110

140

130

120

Ancillary Index Score Profile

160

150


wppsi-iv interpretive considerations for charlie o

Documents